Diabetic Retinopathy: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association

Evaluate intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea. Eyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system. Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year. The 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes. Intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Data from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) show that focal photocoagulation of "clinically significant" diabetic macular edema substantially reduces the risk of visual loss. Focal treatment also increases the chance of visual improvement, decreases the frequency of persistent macular edema, and causes only minor visual field losses. In this randomized clinical trial, which was supported by the National Eye Institute, 754 eyes that had macular edema and mild to moderate diabetic retinopathy were randomly assigned to focal argon laser photocoagulation, while 1,490 such eyes were randomly assigned to deferral of photocoagulation. The beneficial effects of treatment demonstrated in this trial suggest that all eyes with clinically significant diabetic macular edema should be considered for focal photocoagulation. Clinically significant macular edema is defined as retinal thickening that involves or threatens the center of the macula (even if visual acuity is not yet reduced) and is assessed by stereo contact lens biomicroscopy or stereo photography. Follow-up of all ETDRS patients continues without other modifications in the study protocol.

Laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy is often associated with visual field reduction and other ocular side-effects. Our aim was to assess whether long-term lipid-lowering therapy with fenofibrate could reduce the progression of retinopathy and the need for laser treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study was a multinational randomised trial of 9795 patients aged 50-75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive fenofibrate 200 mg/day (n=4895) or matching placebo (n=4900). At each clinic visit, information concerning laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy-a prespecified tertiary endpoint of the main study-was gathered. Adjudication by ophthalmologists masked to treatment allocation defined instances of laser treatment for macular oedema, proliferative retinopathy, or other eye conditions. In a substudy of 1012 patients, standardised retinal photography was done and photographs graded with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) criteria to determine the cumulative incidence of diabetic retinopathy and its component lesions. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64783481. Laser treatment was needed more frequently in participants with poorer glycaemic or blood pressure control than in those with good control of these factors, and in those with a greater burden of clinical microvascular disease, but the need for such treatment was not affected by plasma lipid concentrations. The requirement for first laser treatment for all retinopathy was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (164 [3.4%] patients on fenofibrate vs 238 [4.9%] on placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84; p=0.0002; absolute risk reduction 1.5% [0.7-2.3]). In the ophthalmology substudy, the primary endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade did not differ significantly between the two groups overall (46 [9.6%] patients on fenofibrate vs 57 [12.3%] on placebo; p=0.19) or in the subset of patients without pre-existing retinopathy (43 [11.4%] vs 43 [11.7%]; p=0.87). By contrast, in patients with pre-existing retinopathy, significantly fewer patients on fenofibrate had a 2-step progression than did those on placebo (three [3.1%] patients vs 14 [14.6%]; p=0.004). An exploratory composite endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade, macular oedema, or laser treatments was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94; p=0.022). Treatment with fenofibrate in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus reduces the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy, although the mechanism of this effect does not seem to be related to plasma concentrations of lipids.